Quote from: cascoly on August 20, 2021, 21:52

and again, meaningless comment from someone who won't link to any actual portfolio

Actually the fact that you do link your portfolio, raises doubts about your freedom to tell it as it is, given the known history of reprisals against contributors who criticized certain agencies.
So going out of your way in praising an agency while making your details known is NOT helping your credibility. On the contrary! 😉

ROFLMAO!!!!  where did you study logic?

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 21, 2021, 18:56

Quote from: cascoly on August 20, 2021, 21:52

and again, meaningless comment from someone who won't link to any actual portfolio

Actually the fact that you do link your portfolio, raises doubts about your freedom to tell it as it is, given the known history of reprisals against contributors who criticized certain agencies.
So going out of your way in praising an agency while making your details known is NOT helping your credibility. On the contrary! 😉

ROFLMAO!!!!  where did you study logic?

Instead of internet interjections, argue logically, if you believe in logic, ROFLMAO (!!!!).

Quote from: cascoly on August 21, 2021, 20:12

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 21, 2021, 18:56

Quote from: cascoly on August 20, 2021, 21:52

and again, meaningless comment from someone who won't link to any actual portfolio

Actually the fact that you do link your portfolio, raises doubts about your freedom to tell it as it is, given the known history of reprisals against contributors who criticized certain agencies.
So going out of your way in praising an agency while making your details known is NOT helping your credibility. On the contrary! 😉

ROFLMAO!!!!  where did you study logic?

Instead of internet interjections, argue logically, if you believe in logic, ROFLMAO (!!!!).

As I understand, you nominated photos for free too.

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 21, 2021, 21:12

Quote from: cascoly on August 21, 2021, 20:12

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 21, 2021, 18:56

Quote from: cascoly on August 20, 2021, 21:52

and again, meaningless comment from someone who won't link to any actual portfolio

Actually the fact that you do link your portfolio, raises doubts about your freedom to tell it as it is, given the known history of reprisals against contributors who criticized certain agencies.
So going out of your way in praising an agency while making your details known is NOT helping your credibility. On the contrary! 😉

ROFLMAO!!!!  where did you study logic?

Instead of internet interjections, argue logically, if you believe in logic, ROFLMAO (!!!!).

As I understand, you nominated photos for free too.

Yes. I had a few selected when the program was announced, and now I have two free photos that might kill some of your sales, indeed  . And I got $10 for them, $10 Adobe will soon regret.

But your quote is not about that. It's about discrediting people who chose to remain anonymous to protect their privacy.

A debate is about ideas, not about persons, their ports or their looks. A hypothesis can be right or wrong in itself, and it has nothing to do with how tall or heavy is the person who expressed it.

Believing that your logic is more valuable, because you show your port is illogical. 

But thats why you can deselect the images that you don't want in the free section.
I deselected lots of images. Not just the ones that are selling well on other sites, but also the ones that I felt were too good to give away for the price offered.

Exactly.

Much of my decision depended on how "rare and special" or "difficult to get" a given image was. Whether it was ever likely to be a best seller had nothing to do with it in my eyes.

Logic. It wouldn't be logical for Adobe to pay contributors 2,5 milion dollars, if there wasn't any financial gains in the long term. Financial gains, I mean, more customers in the future, more sales, more money for contributors also. According to Mat, when they first run experiment with only selected number of contributors, it went well, that's why they did it again with larger number of contributors.

Now, should I believe your logic, or Mat's logic, who has first hand knowledge about this.

And if this means customers migrating from SS and iS to Adobe, I'm perfectly fine with it. I prefer getting $0,36  for sub  sale than $0,10 or $0,02.

Of course, Adobe believes in their sales growth hypothesis.

I am challenging that.

Existing Adobe customers will prefer free and stop buying as they would, in normal circumstances. A free collection will not stimulate more sales from existing customers. On the contrary.

While Adobe might see a customer migration from other agencies, customers who are rushing to take advantage of free photos, it is unlikely that they will buy much more, when their motivation was to get free stuff, in the first place.
So, customers moving over from SS will not give you $0.36, but rather something very close to $0.

Let's say that some customers who migrated from SS will buy some more stuff and Adobe might see some additional income. Do you think that their competitors will sit on their hands looking at how Adobe is draining their customer base?
It's only a matter of time before they will react with something similar, returning Adobe to square one and closing this vicious circle.
And then, there will be enough free stuff on the market to satisfy a big part of the global demand.
And then sales will also vanish for Adobe. Somebody might even get fired for betting millions on a losing horse.

Let's not forget that Adobe is, most of all, a softwear company and their main goal is to sell their softwear subscription, not stock photos.

So, when they say that offering free images was a success and has driven more customers to their site, they don't necessarily have to mean stock photo customers. Just a thought.

I can only talk about my port and my sales, but I certainly have not seen any increase in sales on Adobe for the past months.

I think exactly the same!
It is all about getting more software customer OR: Already excist software user getting free stuff, so that they will continue to use it instead of moving to other but free software, which is not that much worse. With free photos by just clicking inside the software makes it nicer than other softwares, where they still have to search for photos - could be Adobe, but no must.
So, if Adobe says they were sucsessful, then in kind of software.
Stock photos are only a means to an end for software sales. Sorry, last sentence is google translation.

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 22, 2021, 09:56

...
Of course, Adobe believes in their sales growth hypothesis.

I am challenging that.

Existing Adobe customers will prefer free and stop buying as they would, in normal circumstances. A free collection will not stimulate more sales from existing customers. On the contrary.

your 'challenge' is counterfactual - (transaltion:you are wrong ) -- free collections have NOT cut into other sales,  as reported by those who actually have some real-life data - your unsupported guess about what will or wont work & your 'understanding' of buyers' habits is nonsense --  aka WAG!

Quote

...customers who are rushing to take advantage of free photos, it is unlikely that they will buy much more, when their motivation was to get free stuff, in the first place....

so - someone who was never going to buy any images STILL isnt buying any images - how does that affect my bottom line?

And yet, you brought no counter-argument.
Just saying "you are wrong" means nothing. 
Same as showing or not showing your port: it adds nothing to this discussion.

You also misunderstood the customer migration hypothesis. Those who migrate are deal chasers, people who may have purchased some stuff from other agencies, but they are migrating now only because this new free stuff is enough for their needs.

Am I the only one who is bored to tears with the controversy this thread has produced?

At least the only person who is bored to tears by a conversation, yet not only sticks around, but also contributes to it.
If a converstain online bored me, I would walk away instead of wasting my time.

Let's not forget that Adobe is, most of all, a softwear company and their main goal is to sell their softwear subscription, not stock photos.

So, when they say that offering free images was a success and has driven more customers to their site, they don't necessarily have to mean stock photo customers. Just a thought.

I can only talk about my port and my sales, but I certainly have not seen any increase in sales on Adobe for the past months.

Right. This isn't about selling stock images, or our stock images, it's all about CC subscriptions. We are an expense for Adobe marketing Creative Cloud.

I haven't seen any change, either way, after the free photos have gone live. I did make some money from photos that have never made $5 in their lifetime, across all agencies, since 2008. People can argue hypothetical, but the facts are, I made money from images that had never made $5 total - ever. And I will concede that this has only been months. But I don't think the free images will change anything for any of us.

But thats why you can deselect the images that you don't want in the free section.
I deselected lots of images. Not just the ones that are selling well on other sites, but also the ones that I felt were too good to give away for the price offered.

Pretty simple isn't that?  We have a choice, to participate or not and a choice of what images. To me that kind of ended all debate over money, or the whole programs existence. Besides, it isn't about stock images or us or bringing new buyers from other agencies. (see above, it's about CC)